Re: HTTP protocol v2: rethunk.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:22 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:

> The only big deal is that we won't want to release the peg-less version of
> your protocol change in 1.6 because it presents a compatibility problem with
> the now-planned peg-ful version. So, are you committing to the work, or
> will you be reverting your recent trunk change?

I'll definitely commit to finishing it this week.

But: how is there a compatibility problem? Your p=PEG parameter is
optional, so I don't think there's any compatibility issue here: we
could easily ship what I just committed in 1.6, then add an optional
p=PEG in 1.7. I guess it might end up confusing users down the line
("does this server support p= or not?") Maybe that's what you mean?
I guess I'm sort of operating under the idea that the query string may
very well expand over time, adding things even beyond pegrev.

But I agree we should add pegrev in 1.6, not 1.7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-05 18:30:25 CET